Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text, and in this
case nor the author.

The license is the contract with the author and the reason why the text can
be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified, the by
attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough. If the
share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give correct credit,
as the request for credit can be pretty weird.

Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something the
external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at some
point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page may not
even contain this content anymore.

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on en at least
> specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed cc-by content
> within articles
>
> On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In some cases we need to attribute content created on external sites, and
> > reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The creator has
> > the right to be named according to good practice" ("Opphavsmannen har
> krav
> > på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our content that
> is
> > given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link to the
> page
> > if possible, or if possible an entry in the history.
> >
> > Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is not the
> > page on our site that the external entity has provided, they have
> provided
> > the content at their site. So we must say that in some consistent way.
> >
> > I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry injected into
> > the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full or part
> > from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the editor or
> by
> > an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the revision. It
> > should also be possible to delete such an entry.
> >
> > An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the summary is
> > the description of the revision, not the source of the revision.
> >
> > Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just another
> > level that makes things more confusing?
> >
> > John Erling Blad
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to